Did you ever think about data security? When you surfing the internet, people look at the thing that you are watching without your permission. People get your personal secret information through the operating system in your device. People getting know your communication with others. And all these things happen, you even you don’t know it. Can you stand it? What do you feel if those happen to you?
Here is an article talking about should Apple comply with the court’s order or not, Apple should not be above the law, by Richard Burr. This issue is about Apple refuse to unlock the iPhone that found in a car. The car was used by terrorists who killed fourteen people in a cruel horror attack. The author, Richard Burr, think, Apple should follow what
Fourteen people were killed in this horror attack. Even after two months, investigators don’t have ideas about the terrorists’ information. However, investigators found a new clue, a new iPhone in the car that belongs to terrorists. IPhone is an important point, in this case, it might relate to other planning that terrorists have, and others terrorists. Court order Apple to unlock the iPhone in order to help law enforcement agents. And the phone owner also agrees to examine it. But Apple rejects to comply it. Apple indicates their operating systems only allow the user to get access to the device. Even Apple itself don’t have ways to do it. Apple also indicates, if they do what court order them to do in this case, Apple think, their brand reputation will be damaged. The author believes that Apple is better to comply, to assist law enforcement agents. Author think Apple should consider lawfully issued court order at first, then its business
The government might keep ordering Apple to help FBI access data on a device. Apple users will feel unsafe with their personal data with the device. People might not want to choose other company’s product instead of Apple’s product since they might worry about revealing their personal data without users’ permission. Google CEO Sundar Pichai also supporting Apple. As Pichai tweeted, "We build secure products to keep your information safe and we give law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders, but that 's wholly different than requiring companies to enable hacking of customer devices & data" (John Gregory, 2016). Pichai thinks it would be a bad
In doing so, they used 3 different logical structures in their arguments: precedent, degree, and analogies. Tim Cook debated with a constructive argument, “to guarantee such a powerful tool isn’t abused and don’t fall into the wrong hands is to never create it” (The Guardian, 2016). This is an example of degree argument, as the audience will automatically agree with any arguments with less of bad things because it is good. Apple knows there are no other cases like this one, so there’s nothing to compare to. Letting the government into the iPhone only this one time can set a dangerous precedent that can potentially force Apple to force open every iPhone in the future at government request. This became a heated legal battle, granting the access in their products for law enforcement was compared to “a political question” by Apple with an analogy (Yadron,
Should Apple be forced to unlock an iPhone or not? It becomes a controversial topic during these years. Most people are concerned with their privacy and security. Darrell Issa is a congressman and has served the government since 2001. Recently, he published “Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent” in Wired Magazine, to persuade those governors worked in the Congress. It is easier to catch administrators’ attention because some of them want to force Apple to unlock the iPhone. Darrel Issa focuses on governors because he thinks they can support the law to make sure that everyone has privacy. He addresses the truth that even some of the governors force Apple to hack iPhones when they need people’s information. He considers maintaining people’s privacy as the primary purpose. He also insists that Apple should not be forced to use their information which could lead people’s safety. In “Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent,” Darrell Issa uses statistics and historical evidence to effectively persuade his audience of governors that they need to consider whether or not Apple should be forced to hack or not because it could bring people to a dangerous situation and forget the purpose of keeping people’s privacy.
Glenn Greenwald, a talented and widely read columnist on civil liberties for the Guardian newspaper, failed in his attempt to alarm his readers to the flagrant and widespread violations of American privacy. Although his article was full of facts, documentation, and quotes from top rank officials, the article did not convey any sense of wrong doing or outrage. Rather it was dull, lacked passion and a sense of persuasion. In fact, the only attention grabbing part in the whole article is the title.
In today 's generation many adults and teenagers keep everything from contacts numbers to their social security numbers on their smartphones. When customers, including criminals and terrorists purchase their smartphones, they are buying it with the assurance that not some, but all of their information and privacy will be safeguarded. The issue occurring today deals with the suspected terrorist of the San Bernardino, California on December 2, 2015 shooting involving over 30 injured people. Syed Farook, the suspected terrorist Apple IPhone is locked with a 4 code password and the government wants Apple to create a backdoor operating systems that allows them to computerize as many passcodes they can to unlocks the terrorists IPhone. Apple strongly believes that creating this necessary backdoor system will create a negative chain of effects that will affect everyone from smartphone users to social media companies and their privacy. The FBI recently has taken Apple to court to create the necessary backdoor operating systems to get around the security features created on the Apple IPhones. Apple has the legal right to refuse creating a “backdoor” software to get into suspected terrorists iphone because it invades the privacy of Apple 's customers, it will set a precedent for other companies, and the FBI will mislead Apple.
In this micro-study, I will use tools and information available to the public via internet in attempt to hack the iPhone. Currently the iPhone is only sold to subscribers of the AT&T telecommunication service provider and all applications and updates are installed using Apple’s iTunes software. Using various resources I will focus the two main issues which have put Apple and the iPhone user community into the limelight. First, the “unlocking” of the iPhone, which bypasses the iTunes activations process and allows the device to be used on any SIM (Subscriber Information Module) card cellular phone service provider other than AT&T, in this micro-study I will be using a T-Mobile SIM card. Second, I will attempt to “jailbreak” the device, which will allow me to install third-party applications through underground sources and not directly from Apple. As I attempt to hack the iPhone, I will compare drawbacks and benefits of hacking methods, ease of use, and verify Apple’s claims on affecting functionality and possible damag...
As of today police officers are required to get a warrant to search any kind of property of the individual being arrested. These warrants require probable cause for the search of specific properties issued by an impartial judge. Those rights are protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Over the years, the United States Court has made exceptions to these requirements, which essentially allow the police to search certain types of property without a warrant and infuriating a lot of citizens. One of the big conflicts that citizens and officers are facing is case of Cellphones and smart phones, until now, the Court had not addressed whether this fit into an exceptions. I strongly believe that the rights of citizens should be preserved and a warrant must be issued in order to go through any information on any kind of phones.
Apple’s refusal to aid the FBI in obtaining information was wrong. When tragedy strikes America, it is the duty of the citizens to do everything they can do in order to protect America from premeditated terrorist attacks occurring. In order to help prevent terrorist attacks from taking place, large companies, such as Apple, should unite with the government in order to make the world safer, and possibly prevent future attacks from occurring. The article,”PRO/CON: Should Apple have resisted FBI pressure to hack an iPhone?” by Tribune News Service summarizes the pro’s and con’s of Apple’s refusal to collaborate with the FBI. The pro’s portion of the article makes it clear that the fourth amendment protects the information of citizens. The con’s portion states that influential companies should be aiding the US government in a way similar to during World War II. So, Apple should help the FBI in their search
The recent leaks, disclosures, and actions of government agencies – namely the National Security Administration (NSA) – have caught the public’s attention and focused it on the protection of privacy and civil liberties. The NSA participates in a bulk data collection program that has accumulated phone data over the past five years in order to track persons suspected of threat to the nation. This collection of mass data without issued warrants violates the Fourth Amendment and brings the potential abuses with this program into view. Not to mention possible cyber security threats: if a subcontractor was able to commandeer this information and leak it, what is stopping hackers from doing the same, or worse.
MacAskill, G. G. (2014, April 28). NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others. Retrieved from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-2%20Special%20trail:Network%20front%20-%20special%20trail:Position1
Swartz and Allen both agree the government’s use of cell pone surveillance is questionable, however they disagree on where the line should be drawn. For example, Swartz’s view is objective when prosecutors make the argument that having access to such crucial data is imp...
As FBI confirmed that they managed to unlock the terrorist mobile, then this makes Apple worried that the hackers would not send this specific technique to other hackers. Apple needs to work very fast that FBI would not be able to use this specific hacking method for too long time. [9]
The Police’s Right to Search Electronic Devices With the major advances in technology over recent decades, the legal question arises of whether or not police have the right to search a person’s electronic devices, such as cellphones, tablets, or computers. A person’s most private and personal information about themselves and their loved ones can be stored on a cellphone, making it important for the sensitive content in electronic devices to be protected from the government. However, a person’s private information such as text messages or internet search history can be very useful in providing crucial evidence of criminal activity to law enforcement. Although this does not always mean that police have the right to search a suspected criminal's
One of Apple’s major ethical issues is the problem of labor. This is a very important problem in today’s world because businesses have a tendency to ignore basic human rights in their never ending competition to make as much money as possible. Outsourcing, using child labor, and overworking employees are all major ethical and legal violations committed all the time by many high profile companies, and often unjustly ignored as it is unfair to the people forced to work in such terrible conditions.
Perceptions of the security and privacy in the new era of technology are reflected in how users handle their personal information on a daily basis in relation to their electronic devices and services. People are less willing to input sensitive information such as their social security number or financial credentials into a mobile device as opposed to a laptop computer, many citing security concerns as the reason why they did not want to input the information (Chin et al. 4). The public feels that their private and sensitive information cannot be protected by the security systems of their smartphones. As a result, they dictate their actions with their electronic devices in order to manually preserve and protect their digital
In this new era of the Internet, most people use the Internet to acquire information of one kind or other. But what these people are not aware of is that the Internet is collecting information about them. Every time we get onto the Internet there might be a compromise of privacy of our personal information. The information flows both ways. With every clock of the mouse on a hyperlink, or an addition to the mailing list, someone out there might be gathering information about us. This raises the seriousness of privacy of our information on the Internet.